SUM CHI CHUNG v. TSANG KWOK HUNG

SUM CHI CHUNG v. TSANG KWOK HUNG

Order 14 application dismissed because the defendant's acknowledgment expressly stated he did not intend to contest and Order 14 requires an intention to defend; leave to amend to invoke Order 19 refused because the amendment would relate back to a date before the statement of claim was served so the prerequisites of Order 19 r 7 were not satisfied and, even if procedural requirements were met, the court would likely refuse declaratory relief without a trial given the interests of an intervening creditor (intended 2nd defendant); therefore both summonses dismissed.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 166
Parties
Plaintiff: Sum Chi Chung; Defendant: Tsang Kwok Hung; Intended 2nd Defendant: Today is Finance Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 January 2022
Case Number
HCA1985/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Trust and Land Dispute / Interlocutory Applications (order 14 and Amendment Under Order 20; Application to Amend to Seek Default Judgment Under Order 19)
Outcome
Both the Order 14 summons and the amendment summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Declaration of Trust, Default Judgment, Summary Judgment (order 14), Order 19 Default Judgment, Joinder, Charging Order
Source Language
EN
Trusts Property Civil Procedure Land Law Equitable Remedies Declaration of Trust Default Judgment Summary Judgment (order 14) +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sum Chi Chung

Plaintiff

Tsang Kwok Hung

Defendant

Today is Finance Limited

Intended 2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trust and Land Dispute / Interlocutory Applications (order 14 and Amendment Under Order 20; Application to Amend to Seek Default Judgment Under Order 19)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Order 14 summary judgment procedure applies where defendant's acknowledgment states he will not contest
  2. 2 Whether leave to amend to add alternative default judgment under Order 19 should be granted
  3. 3 Whether declaratory relief as to beneficial ownership should be granted without a trial

Ratio Decidendi

Order 14 application dismissed because the defendant's acknowledgment expressly stated he did not intend to contest and Order 14 requires an intention to defend; leave to amend to invoke Order 19 refused because the amendment would relate back to a date before the statement of claim was served so the prerequisites of Order 19 r 7 were not satisfied and, even if procedural requirements were met, the court would likely refuse declaratory relief without a trial given the interests of an intervening creditor (intended 2nd defendant); therefore both summonses dismissed.

Court Disposition

Both the Order 14 summons and the amendment summons dismissed

Orders

  • Order 14 summons dismissed
  • Amendment summons (Order 20 r 8) refused; no leave to amend to add alternative Order 19 r 7 claim